A comparison of the candidates' positions on environmental issues (just the beef)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

No high-flying rhetoric written by a high-priced aide in this OP, just the beef.

CARBON CAP AND TARGETS

Biden: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Clinton: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Dodd: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Edwards: Supports at least 80% reductions by 2050
Gravel: Supports cap tied to international compliance; no target specified
Kucinich: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Obama: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
Richardson: Supports 90% reductions by 2050

FUEL EFFICIENCY

Biden: Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2020
Clinton: Supports 35 mpg fleetwide standard by 2020
Dodd: Supports 50 mpg for cars by 2017
Edwards: Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2016
Gravel: Supports 40 mpg
Kucinich: Supported 33 mpg in 2005
Obama: Supports 45 mpg standard by 2020
Richardson: Supports 50 mpg fleetwide standard

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD

Biden: Supports 20% standard by 2020
Clinton: Supports 20% standard by 2020
Dodd: Supports 20% standard by 2020
Edwards: Supports 25% standard by 2025
Gravel: Supports 20% standard by 2020
Kucinich: Supports 20% standard by 2010
Obama: Supports 20% standard by 2020
Richardson: Supports 30% standard by 2020 and 50% by 2050

EFFICIENCY TARGETS

Biden: Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
Clinton: Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
Dodd: Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
Edwards: Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
Gravel: Supports upgrading national utility grid
Kucinich: General support for efficiency; no target specified
Obama: Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
Richardson: Supports 20% increase in energy productivity by 2020

NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL

Biden: Opposes investment in liquid coal
Clinton: Supports investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%
Dodd: New coal plants must capture and store carbon emissions
Edwards: Supports ban on new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon emissions
Gravel: New coal plants must capture and store carbon emissions
Kucinich: No articulated position
Obama: Supports investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%
Richardson: Opposes liquid coal. Supports ban on new coal plants unless they capture and store emissions

Context: The Republican front-runners on the same issues

CARBON CAP AND TARGETS

Ghouliani: No articulated position
McCain: Lead author of bill to reduce emissions 65% by 2050
Romney: Willing to consider cap on emissions only if enacted globally
F. Thompson: No articulated position

FUEL EFFICIENCY

Ghouliani: No articulated position
McCain: Opposed 40 mpg in 2005; supported 35 mpg in 2002
Romney: Opposes increasing fuel efficiency standards as stand alone measure
F. Thompson: Opposed 35 mpg in 2002

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD

Ghouliani: No articulated position
McCain: opposed 10% standard in 2005; opposed 20% standard in 2002
Romney: No articulated position
Thompson: In 2002, opposed 10% and 20% standard

EFFICIENCY TARGETS

Ghouliani: No articulated position
McCain: General support for efficiency; no target specified
Romney: General support for efficiency; no target specified
Thompson: No articulated position

NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL

Ghouliani: Supports liquid coal
McCain: No articulated position
Romney: Supports liquid coal
Thompson: No articulated position

Source: http://www.heatison.org/content/blank/candidate_chart

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Richardson has the edge on the environment imo

Clobama's support for coal and nuclear plants puts them at the low end of the environmental totem pole among our candidates. The Republicans also support coal (for instance, the coal bill Obama sponsored was sponsored by a bipartisan group of coal state senators, i.e. Bunning of Kentucky).

[InvisibleTouch]

2. So it would seem.

I also like his support for protection of the southwestern wolf populations. Too bad he's not more vocal and visible!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Sounds good. What is the background on that?

I have not heard of that issue before. As to Richardson, I think he is on his way to becoming a "top-tier" candidate. Look at how he is doing in Iowa and New Hampshire:

[seasat]

9. Here's background on Richardson and wolf protection.

Gleen Hurowitz over at Huffington Post wrote an article on it. Shrub Inc is renewing the old policies that led to the near extinction of these wolves by killing wolves suspected of attacking cattle. A federally employed hunter killed a dominant female in NM who had pups she was caring for. The hunter may have also pointed his rifle at a NM wildlife person who was trying to stop him. Richardson has taken time out from campaigning to lobby against this policy.

My grandfather used to raise cattle in GA. Based on his stories, a pack of wild dogs are more likely to take down cattle than a wild animal. Wild creatures usually more cautious about human contact. Plus, the ranchers are paid for any cattle by the government if they suspect a kill by a wolf. There are only about 55 wild wolves in NM so they hardly have a population large enough to seriously threaten cattle.

In addition to this article on Richardson's conservation efforts, he's also come out against a proposed coal fired power plant on the Navajo reservation in NM.

[InvisibleTouch]

11. Thanks, you have more accurate details.

I couldn't remember the specifics.

And yes, feral (and even domestic) dogs are much more likely to attack livestock than are wolves, because they don't have the natural fear of man that wild animals do (and rightfully so!).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Thanks nt

[InvisibleTouch]

10. I can't find the original thread anymore...

...but it concerned Richardson keeping protections in place for southwestern wolves, against a good bit of local opposition. I think it had to do with their status when wandering out of a protected area - that even outside the boundaries of a nature preserve, they were not allowed to be killed. Any candidate who understands the balance of nature and the necessity of predators in the mix, is okay by me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Thank you too nt

[Forkboy]

13. His ads have been playing here...

I'm in North/Central Mass about ten minutes from N.H. and his ads are the only ones I'm seeing (on the Dem side...I did see a Romney ad a few weeks back,which cracked me up).One of my friends asked me about him after seeing one,and I think both the ads that I saw were well done,positive ads,and I have a feeling he's playing well around here.

Naturally,how that translates into votes is anyone's guess. N.H. is a funny place (in a good way!).

[Mark Twain Girl]

4. Good info, thanks. n/t

[LWolf]

5. Richardson looks very good

on several issues.

I appreciate an issues-driven primary race. When I rank candidates on issues, it looks like this:

1. Kucinich
2/3. Richardson/Edwards (tied)
4. Gravel (he might be a little higher, if his position statements were more comprehensive.)
5/6. Biden/Dodd (they both have differing stances I don't agree with that make it hard to put one as better than the other)
7. HRC
8. Obama

Edited to add:

I'd like Edwards and Richardson to clarify their position on the DLC and the "third way." If I were comfortable with their clarification, I'd have no problem supporting either.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. E. Edwards

I don't think Edwards, like Dean, ever formally announced he left the DLC. You can stop being a DLC member simply by no longer paying your dues. All I know about why Edwards drifted away from the DLC is an interview in which Elizabeth Edwards said something to the effect of "he disagreed with their direction on things like trade."

As far as Edwards' platform, he is no Kucinich but he also differs with the DLC in some areas. First and foremost, he is a "big government" progressive. Countering the perception of being Democrats being the party of "big government" was one of the original missions of the DLC. For instance, Edwards wants to spend $15 billion a year to fight poverty (notice Obama did not mention a price tag during his speech on poverty?) and $8 billion a year to make access to at least one year of college universal (DLC-types only talk about helping a bit with student loans). Contrast this to some other candidate's "New Democrat" view of the role of government. One of the other major things the DLC stands against is "class warfare." Remember, they blamed Gore's 2000 "loss" on his populist pitch (although Gore's platform was very DLC). The Edwards' campaign's central theme revolves around "class warfare." Contrast "Building One America" to "unity" or "experience." Edwards is actually speaking out against inequality in our economic system. Can you imagine some other candidates every saying "the system is rigged for the super-rich" (of course, contrast their corporate support to Edwards' and you can see why...)? These two fundamental tenets of "DLCism" is where Edwards starkly contrasts with the DLC and Third Way candidates. On other issues he is similar to them with more of a tilt to the left, such as the OP shows on the environment. On the key environmental issues they are the same but he disagrees with the Third Way Democrats on coal (one is heavily financed by the coal industry and I presume the other is too) and nuclear plants.

[LWolf]

12. All good points.

I look a little more closely at E.E.'s remarks; at least someone *said* something about it, which is better than silence.

Edwards was my #2 in '04. In the current crop, he edges Richardson by a hair, mainly due to Richardson's strong DLC connections (although I hear he has "drifted away" the last couple of years), and a more personal distaste for his trophy hunting excursion on Ted Turner's ranch. Still, Richardson gets kudos from me for declaring, out loud at a debate, that he'd get rid of NCLB. Only 2 candidates got to answer that question (3, if you count Dodd jumping in on the next question to rant about accountability), and I'd like to hear every single one of them answer it directly.

I've spoken to DK personally about NCLB, and I know he "gets" the problem. The whole philosophy underpinning it, one of blame and punish, is the antithesis of his world view. What has Edwards said, directly, about NCLB?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Here you go

The following link is of him speaking on NCLB and other education issues at the NEA. http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/8277-john-edwards-no-child-left-behind

Here is what he said in 2004 (he didn't really answer the question clearly in the first video):

==SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: I believe in accountability. I believe in standards. I believe that every child is entitled to a quality education. But the truth is that we've put too much faith in a Bush administration administering that policy, and I've seen what's happened on the ground. It's been devastating, not just here in Iowa, but all over this country.

KWAME HOLMAN: Edwards proposed to change the law's standards to focus more on individual students and less on entire classes. ==

The candidates on NCLB

They seem mostly quiet on the issue.

==Some Democrats in Congress want to reform NCLB, among them NCLB co-author Sen. Ted Kennedy, Chair of the Senate Education Committee.

The Democratic candidates in the 2008 race for the White House, which includes 3 U.S. senators who will vote on NCLB, hold varying views on NCLB.

In her speech to the California Democratic Convention, Sen. Hillary Clinton clearly stated that she supports "fixing" NCLB in a way that "puts teaching in the center."

Sen. Barack Obama proclaimed that, as president, he plans to "recruit and support hundreds of thousands of new teachers across the country," and that the educational system needs to work with teachers, "not against them." Sen. Obama has been mum, though, about NCLB.

Gov. Bill Richardson regards education as a top priority, observing that "Education is the key to economc development." As president, he would guarantee a $40,000 minimum wage for every teacher, contingent on reaching certain benchmarks. Gov. Richardson has been successful in raising education quality in New Mexico, but has said little about NCLB.

About education, former Sen. John Edwards' website says nothing about NCLB, but does offer this:

"As president, I will create second-chance schools to help former dropouts get back on track with one-on-one attention and a chance to earn a diploma at night or at a local community college. I will also invest in expanding preschool programs, attracting and paying excellent teachers... "

Where NCLB Reauthorization Stands

Legislation to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act remains at the Senate Education Committee level, where all parties are working with the White House to shape its final form.

Senate debate on NCLB is slated to being in late May or early June. Proponents hope to take a vote before the Senate reccesses for the summer on August 3, 2007. ==

http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257886.htm

[Alexander]

6. Kucinich's veganism deserves some mention...

Since vegetarians and vegans leave less of a carbon footprint.

[welshTerrier2]

7. where are the "conservation" measures???

if the information in the OP represents the primary (pun intended) plans of the candidates, I see their ideas as tragically inadequate.

why not call for a massive re-engineering of how we work and live to reduce the use of autos? for example, why not call on all employers to reduce "commuter miles" driven by their employees. this could either be done punitively, e.g. taxing those with high commuter miles, or with a system of rewards, e.g. giving special tax breaks to employers who reduce commuter miles.

effective strategies could include the establishing of "satellite offices" or technology to assist with employees working at home some percentage of the time or using software to hold online meetings rather than needing to travel via plane to remote locations.

i find approaches that don't enlist the help of American citizens to be bankrupt from the start. to only focus on the "wonders of future technology" without doing all we possibly can today sounds more like pretty campaign words than a deep commitment to reducing the devastating potential of global warming. god forbid any candidate should actually "burden" the American people with their share of solving the problem.